Editor's note: Portland businessman John von Schlegell caused a recent stir when, in stepping down from the state Board of Higher Education after five years of service, he sent a letter to Gov. Ted Kulongoski calling for an overhaul of the way the state manages and funds its seven universities. In the following piece, a board member and former state legislator cautions against getting what you wish for.

As the first member to join the State Board of Higher Education in 2004 after the new Kulongoski/Goldschmidt team was in place, I would like to add my frustrations, but from a slightly different perspective.

The new board was a majority of extremely talented group of business executives. Since then, the board has continuously been blessed with a dedicated group, including John von Schlegell, that has struggled during the last few years. I think John may have underestimated how much was accomplished during their tenure. They did some structural pruning of administration, incorporated a new fiscal and auditing system, established an interinstitutional research cooperation group, attempted to start a long-range planning format, hired a new chancellor and five new university presidents. Couple that with six years of budget ups and mostly downs, the Board has been a busy group.

However, that never alleviated the frustration of not dealing what we really were there for -- providing the best education for students in a time and cost sensitive way as possible. Such things as who should be doing what between the campuses, and how do we restructure courses and departments to meet the future. Now that's frustration territory! Those things need to be done and some are doing them. Instead, we were confronted with constant fiscal and allocation problems.

When people read about new research grants, stimulus funds and huge new buildings, they equate that with "all's well on the campuses." Not so -- these do not provide general fund dollars for everyday operational funding.

Consequently, our outstanding programs have lost faculty, lacked new equipment and. most of all, lost support staff.

I've always wondered if, when the system was formed in the 1930s with two universities and three "Normal colleges," the Legislature knew something of the future. The state, with its low population and independent nature, could only sustain so much higher education without a tax base. Let me repeat: without a property tax base. Also, the Legislature did not want five (now seven) institutions tripping over each other in Salem for money. This worked reasonably well until a massive switch in funding, brought on by the passage of Ballot Measure 5 in 1990, that traded lower property taxes for general funds in the state budget. Most agencies never recovered from the loss of funds needed to meet our statewide obligations.

It is not surprising then, when we were faced with reducing budgets in five out of the last six years, that we simply have adopted a "reduction mindset." Keep raising tuition (our only balancing source) to salvage the system.

In fact, since the state made room for Measure 5 in 1991, there have been only a few up years in state general funding out of 18 years.

Currently, the talk of revolution has centered not on education, but who to throw out of the system or secretly letting a large university buy their way out of the system. Let the public and their legislators be aware that once the system is breached, a political free-for-all for funds will occur. Of course, the prime question to ask that university is, what is the current market value of all the public buildings and land that would have to be paid back to the public in current dollars? And they would have to agree to not receive any further funding from the state. Not really a realistic solution.

In recent years, several board members and some staff have suggested that becoming a public corporation with a lump sum allocation of dollars and a CEO is the solution. Currently, we have a CEO, the chancellor, and a board of directors.

I do agree that the Legislature could release us of several restrictions, which would save the system money. But, I caution against getting a complete removal from legislative oversight. You may not like what you get from total detachment.

Public corporations do not have a sparkling track record when the economy goes bad (examples: Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac). Likewise, our own Oregon Health & Sciences University, State Accident Insurance Fund, and Oregon Public Broadcasting can be quickly abandoned of any assistance as they are expected to support themselves -- so much for state obligations. However, if legislators still want to maintain they are the public's watchdogs, they have the obligation to look at a system, which is their strongest economic engine, and to care about the future of their children!

The key frustration, from the governor on down to every agency, is that we cannot support a population that has almost doubled in 25 years on a "one legged tax system" and a growing reliance on gambling money.

There's the 800-pound gorilla -- it's that simple.

There are services that make us a caring and functioning society.

State government does not share in any property tax revenue with the exception of K-12 and community colleges, so when higher education comes for general funds it is pitted against the two remaining dominant budgets -- human resource agencies, and sorrections (prisons). That should not be an "us or them" funding competition.

As long as the public remains in denial, legislators remain in denial, and business remains in denial, we will continue to appoint boards, commissions and reset committees to devote an enormous amount of time tilting at windmills, wringing their hands as they suffer through another exercise of a "thousand cuts."

As my tenure comes to an end, a very talented board will continue to do what needs to be done. But as a teacher of 35 years and a legislator for 20 years, we will not have the time to fully find better ways to be effective educators -- until we cage the gorilla.